"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
...will last until the union or the government figures out a
way to
stop it.

" Ford is also running into resistance from its unionized
work force
as it tries to cut costs further.

Its improving fortunes were the main reason cited by the
United
Automobile Workers on Monday for rejecting another round of
labor
concessions that would have roughly matched concessions that
workers
at Chrysler and General Motors approved in the spring."

The U.A.W.'s president, Ron Gettelfinger, and its vice
president in
charge of the Ford unit, Bob King, said in a statement that
the
carmaker's third-quarter profit was "evidence of the
contributions
that Ford workers have made.""

http://tinyurl.com/ya4pyay


Why should they cave to demands from management? How about
producing decent products that people want to buy?

--
Nom=de=Plume


They are decent products. But if you are paying some low
skilled laborer excess money, then the decent product is priced
out of the market.

Then, when the contract expires the company should seek to
renegotiate. It takes two parties to make a contract. If there's
good management in place, then the union members will feel
better about consessions.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, they should pay the workers what they are worth. A lot less
than they are making. $65 bundled labor cost to install a lug
nut?

Yes. I agree. What, pray tell, are they worth? Who determines
this? You?

--
Nom=de=Plume


The market place. Not the union strong arming the company.
Between the union and **** poor management over the at least 40
years before the crash, there is no way the car companies can
succeed.

Hate to tell you, but a negotiated contract _is_ the market rate.
Looks like Ford is going to do ok and even GM is doing better.
Chrysler I think is on the way out completely.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The artificial market rate. **** Poor management is the reason for
those egregious contracts. American car companies at the time had 80
or 90% of the world market. Why worry about fiscal responsibility
when you could pass on the cost and produce crappy cars. Now the
real market rate is maybe 25% of the negotiated rate. My daughter
bought a used Hyundai station wagon a couple years ago. 100k
warrantee, good car, 70% the price of a comparable American car. Buy
American? Not when it comes with a 42% premium. For a car with less
warrantee.

Please show us the data for the "real" market rate. Yes. ****-poor
management. I agree. Thus, unions came into being.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and a
valid market rate is less than that.

Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume


They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.

So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.